So what do you think of experiences then? Do we have them at all? — bert1

I treat 'experiences' as the packaging up and logging to memory of discrete subsections of the continuous interaction with our environment. As such they involve filtering (what bits of sensory inputs were relevant and what weren't), start and stop points (how to mark off 'the event' - I stubbed my toe), and most importantly of all, threading it into the various narratives we use to navigate the world (all the way from stories about my the body's edges, pain responses, and basic stuff like that to stories about how "the kid's need to bloody well tidy their rooms more often because that's the fifth time I've stubbed my toe on their damn toys!", or whatever). These all 'fix' the event in the memory so that it can form part of the models interpreting future events.

The doing of all this is what we call 'having an experience'. It's actually happening anything from a few milliseconds to a few minutes after the physical causes we think it's about. It's a post hoc storytelling exercise, it answers the question "what just happened there?"

My contention is that it is separate from its environment in a particular, crucial way. Non-living things are not separated in the same way. — Daemon

Then I would disagree with you here. Just because living things move in relation to a stationary environment does not render them separate from it. There is no gap or space in between, and both entities continue to relate, interact and connect. The difference is that the limits of this interaction are determined by the overall organisation of the cell, as an integrated structure of highly variable chemical processes. Any ‘separation’ is assumed by a conscious observer.

Integration seems to me the prerequisite here for consciousness.
— Possibility

Can you say more about why? — Daemon

From what I can see it is a configuration as whole, rather than a boundary (appearance of separation) itself, that enables consciousness.

The non-conscious mechanism I am using as an example, chemotaxis in bacteria, is a series of chemical reactions resulting in swimming behaviour that tends to take the bacterium closer to an attractant. There is no awareness. The behaviour does look like it involves awareness (how can the bacterium swim towards the attractant if it isn't aware of its location?) but we know about the chemical process in exquisite detail, and we can see that the process is non-conscious. — Daemon

I get this, and I do think there is awareness, but not consciousness. The bacterium as a whole is not aware of the attractant’s location. But a chemical process within this group is aware of changes in the chemical gradient of the attractant (allowed through by the chemical process in the cell wall). The chemical process has a relation of change with this gradient, which in turn has a relation of change with other chemical processes within the bacterium - ie. they demonstrate awareness of changes in this chemical process.

I see, but still. Why should psyche, according to functionalists, be absent if the brain is in sleep mode? How can a material process, which according to them contains no psyche in it's base (dead, psycheless particles interacting), give rise to, say, consciousness of heat or cold? Say you know the complete pattern of material processes involved, and the environment they are situated in, how would this constitute an explanation? — Haglund

Well, that's the question. There are a couple of suggestions:

1) These processes are just what we mean by consciousness. We should ditch the old unscientific folk concepts, and redefine words so they make more sense in a modern context.

2) Reverse the burden of proof. Ask not "Why would it feel like something to perform these functions?" Instead, ask "Why wouldn't it feel like something to, say, enter into a modelling relationship with the environment?"

3) Keep pointing out, over and over again, how particular experiences are correlated with brain function, and how changes in experience are always and only accompanied by changes in brain function. And the obvious explanation here, is that experience just is the brain function, right? Surely you must, at some point, admit they are the same thing no? How stubborn or stupid are you? It's modern science. Wake up. This has been shown over and over. Your old superstitious wishful thinking has had its day.

What do you think of those?

"Why wouldn't it feel like something to, say, enter into a modelling relationship with the environment?" — bert1

Yes, that's a good one! I can't imagine it wouldn't feel like anything. We have a face and mouth and body. Or better, are a body. Constantly resonating with the world outside and even enactingly shaping it. How could that go without consciousness? But still it leaves a gnawing. Maybe elementary particles contain the seeds already. They can't exist without interaction either. A mystery! :smile:

From what I can see it is a configuration as whole, rather than a boundary (appearance of separation) itself, that enables consciousness. — Possibility

Ok, but I am positing the separation of organisms as a prerequisite.

I do think there is awareness, but not consciousness. The bacterium as a whole is not aware of the attractant’s location. But a chemical process within this group is aware of changes in the chemical gradient of the attractant (allowed through by the chemical process in the cell wall). — Possibility

But awareness is an aspect of consciousness. The chemical process isn't aware of things in the way you are aware of things.

Ok, but I am positing the separation of organisms as a prerequisite. — Daemon

Yes, and I’m disagreeing with you on this point. I think that consciousness is hindered to the extent that the organism is separated from its environment. When the brain’s connection to the nervous system is impeded, we lose consciousness. Configuration as whole is not the same as separation.

But awareness is an aspect of consciousness. The chemical process isn't aware of things in the way you are aware of things. — Daemon

No argument with you there. But the way a chemical process is aware of things does contribute to the way we are aware of things.

There is no sharp cut-off point between being bald and non-bald
— bert1
of course there is. You just choose not to admit it. Here are the extremes for both cases(Again)
A. a head without hair b. a head with hair.
A a unconscious state b. a conscious state.
Both extremes in both cases display many stages in between. — Nickolasgaspar


OK, lets write it out:

[bald] .... [1 hair, 2 hairs.....501 hairs....100,001 hairs]... [not bald]
[seven] ... [???] ... [not-seven]
[spatial] ... [???] ... [not spatial]
[unconscious] .... [what do we write here???]... [conscious]

Please tell me what goes in between unconscious and conscious?

I have included the concepts of seven and space as these are arguably binary as well, with no middle ground, just to illustrate the point. I'm suggesting consciousness is like that. — bert1

Can you see the problem in your claim? Υοu are making up concepts with an idealist quality that don't exist in nature.
like a head can have many "numbers of hair" our conscious states come display many levels. You can be asleep,half awaken, fully awaken, lethargic, distrusted,in a defuse state, in afocus state etc etc etc etc etc etc.
You need to revisit the concepts you use.

Thank you. To be clear, would you consider a thermostat to be aware of temperature in this sense? — bert1

-Α small metal plate being affected by temperature thus allowing a circuit to open or close is not what we identify as "being aware". Animals (including humans) are aware of things around them by processing stimuli through a central nervous system which allows them to identify meaning and predict implications.

I'd love for you to expand on this if you have time. How does a brain generate an emotion? — bert1

There are Moocs (Neuroscience) that explain how specific mechanisms give rise to our affections and emotions and we reason them in to feelings.

our conscious states come display many levels. You can be asleep,half awaken, fully awaken, lethargic, distrusted,in a defuse state, in afocus state etc etc etc etc etc etc. — Nickolasgaspar

These are all conscious states though. Here:

[conscious states: half awaken, fully awaken, lethargic, distrusted,in a defuse state, in afocus state]

[in-between states...????]

[non-conscious state: knocked out(?), dreamless sleep(?), dead, being a rock, being a blastocyst]

There are Moocs (Neuroscience) that explain how specific mechanisms give rise to our affections and emotions and we reason them in to feelings. — Nickolasgaspar

Really?! Then that is the end of the philosophy of consciousness. Yet why are neuroscientists and professional philosophers still talking about this as if they don't know the answer?

This is not as straightforward as you think it is.

These are all conscious states though. Here: — bert1

yes, they are like there different stages of baldness.

-"[in-between states...????]"
-Why is it so difficult for you? You just listed the in between states ( half awaken, fully awaken, lethargic, distrusted,in a defuse state, in a focused state) and now you ask for those different states? Maybe you don't understand that a fully alerted state resemble a head full with hair and a lethargic a head with a few hair near its ears.....

-"[non-conscious state: knocked out(?), dreamless sleep(?), dead, being a rock, being a blastocyst] "
-....being completely bald...being conscious is not an option for rocks or blastocysts. Those do not have the capacity.

Why do philosophers talk about life when we have already answered that question. Why philosophers talk about the universe being a simulation when we have disproved that claim since 2017?
Why philosophers still talk about god or the supernatural when we have proven unnecessary and insufficient for more than 400 years?
There is plenty of scientific and philosophical work to be done on the brain and mind, but it doesn't have to do with the questions you may assume. Anil Seth has a great essay on AEON on why the hard questions in neuroscience have nothing to do with the pseudo "why" questions of the Hard problem of consciousness.

Why do philosophers talk about life when we have already answered that question. Why philosophers talk about the universe being a simulation when we have disproved that claim since 2017?
Why philosophers still talk about god or the supernatural when we have proven unnecessary and insufficient for more than 400 years? — Nickolasgaspar

What is the answer to the question of life?
What was that proof in 2017?
What philosophers are talking about God?

1.That we don't need "artifacts" like Orgone energy or Élan vital to explain a pure biological process.
2. In 2017 a study was published showing that we are not living in a simulation.
3. The problem is that philosophers still believe that god is a philosophical subject...

I just found my old links on that study.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/science/physics/physicists-find-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/physicists-confirm-that-were-not-living-in-a-computer-simulation/
https://www.sciencealert.com/quantum-complexity-rules-out-our-universe-as-a-computer-simulation

3. The problem is that philosophers still believe that god is a philosophical subject... — Nickolasgaspar

What philosophers? Certainly there are a few, but they write more for a religious audience.

2. In 2017 a study was published showing that we are not living in a simulation. — Nickolasgaspar

While I don't find this topic all that interesting, the point is that if we were in a simulation we would not be able to determine it one way or another.

While I don't find this topic all that interesting, the point is that if we were in a simulation we would not be able to determine it one way or another. — Jackson

-How do you know? Do you understand whichclaim was challenged and what metrics were used to falsify it?

there are many philosophers who are theists and they try to introduce their metaphysics views in philosophy. Just open a Philosophical Journal or browse these forums.

Just open a Philosophical Journal — Nickolasgaspar

Do you have a particular journal you can reference?

https://philpapers.org/s/god

↪Jackson
https://philpapers.org/s/god — Nickolasgaspar

Thanks.

yrmw!

yes, they are like there different stages of baldness.

-"[in-between states...????]"
-Why is it so difficult for you? You just listed the in between states ( half awaken, fully awaken, lethargic, distrusted,in a defuse state, in a focused state) and now you ask for those different states? Maybe you don't understand that a fully alerted state resemble a head full with hair and a lethargic a head with a few hair near its ears.....

-"[non-conscious state: knocked out(?), dreamless sleep(?), dead, being a rock, being a blastocyst] "
-....being completely bald...being conscious is not an option for rocks or blastocysts. Those do not have the capacity. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm sorry I'm not getting the point across properly. If you are interested, this article probably explains it much better than I have:

https://philpapers.org/rec/ANTAOC-2

The states you identified and I listed are not in-between states. They are all, fully, 100% states of consciousness. They all meet the definition. They are all experienced, it feels like something to be in those states. That means they are conscious states.

Why do philosophers talk about life when we have already answered that question. Why philosophers talk about the universe being a simulation when we have disproved that claim since 2017? — Nickolasgaspar

Philosophers don't actually talk about life all that much. They've let biologists have that concept.

Why philosophers still talk about god or the supernatural when we have proven unnecessary and insufficient for more than 400 years?

Again, professional philosophers don't all that much. Some do, but then some scientists are also religious too.

There is plenty of scientific and philosophical work to be done on the brain and mind, but it doesn't have to do with the questions you may assume. Anil Seth has a great essay on AEON on why the hard questions in neuroscience have nothing to do with the pseudo "why" questions of the Hard problem of consciousness.

OK, I may have a look at that, thanks. You do know that some neuroscientists are panpsychists don't you? Christof Koch and Guilio Tononi for example.

-"Philosophers don't actually talk about life all that much. They've let biologists have that concept"
-I wish...

-"Again, professional philosophers don't all that much. Some do, but then some scientists are also religious too."
-First of all supernatural and religions are not the same. Anyone can be a philosopher. A payroll is not the criterion.

-"OK, I may have a look at that, thanks. You do know that some neuroscientists are panpsychists don't you? Christof Koch and Guilio Tononi for example. "
-Yes they are, but their metaphysical views are not part of the science. Science has high standards....a PhD alone doen't give our ideas a free pass..>Evidence are necessary.